Cicero,

I may be totally missing the boat here, but...

I’m figuring out that I think I’m more upset at the writers than I am able to get at Ron Paul for this newsletter fiasco. From their drafting this junk in the first place to not being willing to stand up and be counted now is simply cowardice. I’m also not going to try to explain away Paul’s responses (or lack there of) so far. I do think they have been lacking somewhat. But what I can’t get my arms around is the libertarian idea of live and let live and yet all this upset over what someone writes in a newsletter with Paul’s name attached to it. Yes it may indicate something about his management style; and yes you or I or any number of people might have handled it differently, but when you get down to it what is wrong with Paul sponsoring a newsletter that allows people to participate in the very freedom of expression that we as libertarians (forgive me if I’m painting with too broad a brush here) are supposed to believe so strongly in?

I’m sure Faux News cringes every time Judge Napalitano is on. I’m sure CNN holds its breath every time they host Wayne LaPierre. The local rag here, the St Pete Times, probably hates covering the lawful use of a handgun for self-defense, but they still do it (or allow it). It’s not the same as spewing bigotry, but don’t we libertarians believe that people are free to believe and speak as they wish? I personally am satisfied that Paul does not hold these views. That seems obvious to me from his writings I have read and speeches I have heard. I even think those that are questioning their support for him (like Radley http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...ow/124340.html) still believe that. But I think Vox gets it right http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/...w-nails- it.html. I mean, to what degree are we going to hold Paul accountable for something we as libertarians are supposed to actually stand for? Paul doesn’t support abortions (or probably “gay marriage”), but understands that it would not be in his power as El Capitan to do anything about it. What is really so wrong with him allowing something to be written (or in the case of abortion, being done) that he doesn’t agree with, but is indeed consistent with his beliefs as a practicing libertarian?

Ackk, I’m so confused…

Have a safe weekend.

Tom
Tom Sullivan | 01.11.08 - 11:40 pm | #